Did the NRA not participating in Obama's Gun Forum hurt or help?

They were only going to be allowed to ask one question and it would have been subject to approval by the Obama team. Nothing good could have come from that.

An NRA rep. Would have been allowed to ask 1 question, and it had to be pre-screened.

Meaning Obama was allowed to pick which questions they could ask....and would have time to put together a carefully worded reply.

They weren't invited to have a discussion, they were invited so Obama could make them look bad.

Them choosing to not participate was a wise move.

I think it was neutral. It didn't hurt or help. Really no reason to participate in Obama's dog and pony show.

I think it was neutral. It didn't hurt or help. Really no reason to participate in Obama's dog and pony show.

Click to expand...

For the most part, agree, neutral, It did show Obama's terrible understanding of our 2A and unalienable gun rights.

The man is an emotional psychotic. There is certainly no cure in his lifetime.

I believe the NRA was right in declining the invitation. They would have been walking into ambush journalism, as in the moderator permitting a gun violence victim to ask "why did you let my child die?"
Nope, that would be like going to a casino where you knew the house played with marked cards and loaded dice.
Maybe the President would consent to appear on Fox News for a town hall meeting?

The NRA had nothing to gain opposing these "nonactions" and everything to lose in terms of PR

If this is the best the gun control lobby can conjure up I'd say the NRA comes out looking pretty good at the strategic level

TOTAL waste of time

There was NO WAY in hell that the NRA would get FAIR time to answer all the B.S. that Obama and the fruitcakes at CNN would have piled on.

I say they took THE best road.

Red Wind said:

For the most part, agree, neutral, It did show Obama's terrible understanding of our 2A and unalienable gun rights.

The man is an emotional psychotic. There is certainly no cure in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

I was talking more about the NRA's decision. I don't think the "townhall" was neutral. I think the NRA not being part of it was a zero sum game. No gain or loss.

I think that the best that the NRA spokesman could have done is to point out how poorly (and selectively) existing laws are enforced, and how passing additional laws without enforcing existing ones is a fool's errand.

Taya Kyle succeeded in pointing this out in a gentle and positive way, masterfully weaving "Hope" throughout her statement/question. Great job!

If they'd showed a soft hand, they'd have been called 'on the ropes'

If they'd showed a strong hand, they'd have been called 'gun bullies'

If they'd shouted "you lie!" to half the stuff Obama said, or "you have no idea what you're talking about!" to the other half, they'd have been shown their internal organs by the security detail.

They would remain the most reviled civil rights advocacy group since the Freedom Riders regardless the outcome. No one was going to be educated, informed, or have their ideas tested in good faith debate.

By remaining absent, they did deny Obama their shred of legitimacy in his propaganda. By remaining absent, a whole lot of NRA members and supporters did not waste their time viewing, thus withdrawing their legitimacy as well. By remaining absent, the single significant (at least to the anti's way of thinking) opponent apart from some singular semi-celebrities and niche groups was not present to be denigrated face-to-face.

Had LaPierre been in the audience list in advance, I think the 'neutral tone*' would have been very different. It seems, anymore, like the three letters of the group cause a visceral reaction in the anti's, so any modicum of civility in the room would be quickly lost. The NRA's absence was extraordinarily helpful to us for that reason alone.

TCB

*pretty wild how 'neutral' now includes anything that isn't a flat-out loogie in the face; they can spout outright lies & prattle on about things they have no knowledge of, and it's neutral so long as they pretend to let us get a word in edgewise a few times

"I think that the best that the NRA spokesman could have done is to point out how poorly (and selectively) existing laws are enforced, and how passing additional laws without enforcing existing ones is a fool's errand."
Which would great, if many were enforceable. That line of tactical retreat (we all know these laws suck and must be repealed; the whole point of saying 'enforce them' is to distract from anti's proposals for additional restriction) only goes so far. Some mention of just how stupid the scheme of BGCs is being run would be helpful; the whole point of it being the prosecution of attempted illegal purchases, yet the actual impact being a black-box decree of whether a gun may be purchased (of dubious accuracy and near-meaningless impact on weapon acquisition by criminals)

The only person not there to answer questions (that I know of) that should have been was probably John Lott...or Alex Jones (hey, it was the president that brought up the Revolutionary War in the middle of a discussion about gun control )

TCB

I'm glad they stayed out of that media circus!!

No win can come out of playing against a stacked deck!!

And it was for sure a stacked deck!!

rc

By all accounts Obama hung himself out to dry so I wouldn't want to have done anything different.

One pre-screened question is terrible.

AND, personally, I have not been impressed with Wayne Lapierre. I don't know who they would have had but that guy Wayne was just terrible a few years ago when Senator Cruz was lobbing big juicy leading-question softballs over the plate.

I think they made a mistake. From a purely political standpoint they made a clear mistake. The fact that Obamas minions were going to screen their questions is not an issue if you know how to handle it.

It was a mistake. But it will be a quiet mistake.

Nothing good could have come from that.

Get on You Tube and watch some of videos of Wayne testifying before congress. Listen to their question, assumptions, and allegations. They are just terrible people in every way.

Agsalaska said:

I think they made a mistake. From a purely political standpoint they made a clear mistake. The fact that Obamas minions were going to screen their questions is not an issue if you know how to handle it.

It was a mistake. But it will be a quiet mistake.

Click to expand...

Why was it a mistake?

It was not a mistake. Only to a Progressive! See post #18.

Warp said:

Why was it a mistake?

Click to expand...

I think they had an opportunity and they passed on it. How often does the NRA get an opportunity to directly confront the President. If they ask a tough question, which they most certainly would, and the administration refused it, that by itself would become a story.

My main concern is that they let him control the narrative, not something I am comfortable with.

Red Wind said:

It was not a mistake. Only to a Progressive!

Click to expand...

Why would you make a comment like that? What is the purpose? Are you a troll? Or just incapable of going against a decision made by the NRA?

I've seen surprisingly little of it in the media, which tells me that the lefties think Obama flopped.
Mauserguy

Hindsight is 20/20. Had the NRA been there it would have been a totally different set up. And the NRA knew that.

NMn

Mauserguy said:

I've seen surprisingly little of it in the media, which tells me that the lefties think Obama flopped.
Mauserguy

Click to expand...

Really? I read articles in the Washington Post, Washington Times, NY times, The federalist, The New Republic, The Boston Globe, the NY Post, Bloomberg, the AP wire report, and at least two or three others in the last 2 days.